The
Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Sam Alito was a high stakes political
poker game that began, slowly, like a boring penny ante poker played
by amateurs. Alito attempted to assure Senate Democrats that, if confirmed,
he would dispense justice to rich and poor equally. "There is nothing
that is more important for our Republic than the rule of law..."
Although none of the liberals voiced it, Alito had inadvertently but
very precisely identified the reason the liberals would attempt to derail
his nomination.

The
following day Sen. Herb Kohl [D-WI] would take Alito to task on that
very issue. In doing so, he would identify to every American citizen
watching the confirmation hearings—if they were really listening—exactly
why the Democrats have fought every conservative judicial nominee since
Robert Bork. And while the left would have us believe it's been over
the issue of abortion, in reality its always been about putting judges
on the bench who are not afraid of applying more expansive, imaginative
interpretations of what the Constitution says and what our laws mean
as we adjust to the new realities of the world as a global community.

"Judge
Alito," he began, "we heard a lot of discussion yesterday about the
proper role of the judge in our system. Some said that a judge should
favor neither the big guy or the little guy, but simply apply the law
and not make the law. Based on what you said yesterday, I believe that
you would agree generally with this characterization.

"However,
to me," Kohl continued, "it's not quite so simple. Just as no two umpires
call the same game exactly, no two judges see a case in exactly the
same way. Laws...are often ambiguous and capable of many interpretations.
Those interpretations are the result of judges with different judicial
philosophies. Some judges have a more liberal judicial philosophy, while
others are more conservative. And we're here trying to figure out what
your judicial philosophy is. That's probably the principle point of
this hearing. If the law were so simple we would not have as many 5-4
decisions. It seems to me that many of the most fundamental protections
of civil rights and civil liberties that we take for granted today...have
come when judges have been willing to look beyond rigid legal doctrines
that prevailed at the times of those rulings.

The
neutral approach, that of the judge just applying the law, is very often
inadequate to ensure social progress, right historic wrongs and protect
civil liberties so essential to our democracy. So isn't it true, Judge
Alito, that a neutral judge would never have reached these conclusions?
In fact, for decades, courts did not reach these conclusions. So would
you agree that these cases were rightly decided, number one; and required,
number two, that judges apply a more expansive, imaginative view of
the Constitution?"

"I
think that the Constitution contains both some very specific provisions,"
Alito deftly replied, sidestepping Kohl's landmine. "And there the job
of understanding what the provision means and applying it to new factual
situations that come up is relatively easy. The Constitution sets age
limits, for example, for people who want to hold various federal offices
and there can't be much debate about what that means or how it applies.
But it also contains some broad principles: no unreasonable search and
seizures, the guarantee that nobody will be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process of law, equal protection of the laws.
And in those instances, it is the job of the judiciary to try to understand
the principle and apply it to the new situations that come before the
judiciary. I think the judiciary has to do that in a neutral fashion.
I think judges have to be wary about substituting their own preferences,
their own policy judgments for those that are in the Constitution..."

"These
decisions to which I just referred pushed society into new directions,"
Kohl shot back testily, frustrated by Alito's answers—but careful not
to show his frustration. "And they came about—didn't they? As a result
of the Supreme Court's willingness to look at the Constitution in perhaps
a different and a new way and take a new approach and a new avenue—which
is not entirely consistent with a neutral judge simply applying the
law. The law is the law. It's not hard to find that out, as you somewhat
suggested, that you're an umpire. A ball is a ball; a strike is a strike.
I'm suggesting that it's—and I would like to hope you would agree that
it's—somewhat if not a lot more complex and sophisticated. If it weren't
true, we could have a lot of views here today. I think you're unique
in many ways. And part of that is your complexity, your sophistication,
your ability to look at the Constitution and, if necessary, see new
meanings that weren't seen there before. Isn't that true? In fact, for
decades, courts did not reach these conclusions. So would you agree
that these cases were rightly decided, number one; and required, number
two, that judges apply a more expansive, imaginative view of the Constitution?"

"Well,
Senator," Alito replied, "I would never say that it is an easy process.
There are some easy cases, but there are lot of very difficult cases.
And once you have identified the principle, the job of applying it to
particular cases is often not easy at all. But what the judge has to
do is make sure that [he] is being true to the principal that is expressed
in the Constitution and not to the judge's principle—not to some idea
that the judge has."

Kohl's
exchange with Alito was the only intelligent Democratic tête-à-tête
in the interrogation of Samuel A. Alito. Kohl played well to his constituents.
Kohl is one of the Judiciary Committee members up for reelection this
year. Sen. Ted Kennedy is also up for election this fall. But his approach
to Alito was the same as it was with any other conservative judicial
nominee—he was the philosophical enemy that needed to be stopped or
verbally maimed. Kennedy, like Russell Feingold [D-WI], Schumer, Patrick
Leahy and Joe Biden [D-DE], painted Alito as a conservative ideologue
who, like Bork in 1987, would roll back Roe v Wade, women's rights,
affirmative action and, that Alito was too deferential to presidential
power. Sen. Ted Kennedy chose to call Alito a racist, noting that the
judge "In 15 years on the bench," Kennedy noted, Alito "...has not
written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color
alleging race discrimination on the job." In point of fact, within
minutes of making the statement, Republicans were circulating details
of at least four such cases in which Alito ruled in favor of minorities.
"Any student in his third week of law school would know this stuff,"
a GOP staffer said as he passed out the rebuttal of Alito's record.
"It has to be intentional." Of course it was.

From
the beginning it was clear that the Alito hearing would be more contentious
than the Roberts' hearing since Roberts was replacing a conservative
vote on the High Court and Alito would be replacing a moderate to liberal
swing vote. O'Connor, like the court's four liberals: Stephen Breyer,
David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens, had signed
on to the globalists agenda over five years ago to apply a more expansive,
imaginative view of the Constitution by imputing a special equality
to minorities not afforded to the majority in order to ensure social
progress, right historic wrongs and protect the civil liberties of minorities
and women that the Democrats feel are so essential to the strengthening
of democracy.

Alito,
who has affirmed his belief in the rule of law, is viewed as a step
backward in achieving this "special" equality for cultural and racial
minorities. Senator Patrick Leahy showed his disappointment and frustration
in the fact that Alito had successfully run the gauntlet when he said,
"No president should be allowed to pack the courts, and especially
the Supreme Court, with nominees selected to enshrine presidential claims
of government power..." since the Democrats know that Alito's confirmation
will shift the court to the right—back to the rule of law.

It
is interesting to note that the Democrats, who virtually controlled
both the House and the Senate from 1933 to 1994 with only a couple of
brief reprieves, saw nothing wrong with Franklin D. Roosevelt's stacking
the high court with the architects of the New Deal to protect the shift
from democracy to socialism in America. FDR appointed more justices
to the Supreme Court than any other president except George Washington.
While the original Court had only 5 justices, none of them viewed the
job as a lifetime berth. Washington nominated 14 justices over 8 years.
All but one were confirmed within two days. The 14th, John Rutledge
(who resigned from the high court in 1791 after two years and was re-nominated
in 1795) was denied a second berth on the high court..

The
liberal Democrat believes that the moral code of a true democracy (socialism)
mandates that it's the duty of each citizen to provide for all other
citizens, and that government is the natural instrument to redistribute
the wealth of society. Advocates of social justice believe that current
injustices to minorities should be corrected until the actual inequity
no longer exists. Thus, the redistribution of wealth, power and status
from the individual to the community are in the societal good. This
is the core objective of the social justice advocate, and this is where
the US Supreme Court—and the federal judiciary—has been headed. The
liberals need judges who are willing to depart from the rule of law
and take eugenic action by reinterpreting the laws based on the principles
of social justice in order to ensure that all people have a similar
quality of life. True social justice, the liberal falsely argues, does
not penalize success or reward failure.

They
believe it holds all people to the same standards regardless of their
race, ethnic origin, financial condition, or religious beliefs. The
concept of social justice is, of course, the principles of communism.
It's an experiment that failed in the Soviet Union because communism
robs not only the spirit from the man but incentivism as well. Without
an incentive to achieve more than mediocrity, man quickly loses any
individual initiative to strive for success because the failure receives
the same reward. While the socialist society may realize what is perceived
as an immediate benefit—poverty is reduced and poverty-related ills
to society appear to be erased—but punative taxation that is innately
unfair will result in hard-workers working less and the productivity
that fueled prosperity will weaken. The economy will stagnate and chronic
unemployment that cannot be solved by more government will result.

Had
conservative Christians not rebelled against President Bush's selection
of White House lawyer Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sanda Day O'Connor,
Miers would have had a relatively uneventful confirmation hearing. And
a nominee even farther to the left than Harry Blackmun would have unwittingly
been confirmed to the high court. Miers would have helped the social
activists dilute American sovereignty—and the United States would have
been introduced to communism by judicial fiat in the form of social
justice activism.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Denying
Miers a slot on the high court, and giving that bench to a rule of law
jurist unfortunately will not end the utopian attempt to rewrite the
rule of law with what will be media-whipped as the Christian principles
of social justice as an alternative to both capitalism and communism.
Social justice will simply be implemented at the appellate level until
the American people wake up and demand that judges who use forms of
social justice to implement the basic tenets of communism in the United
States be impeached—and Congressmen and Senators who fail to accede
to the demands of the voters be voted out of office, recalled, or impeached
themselves.

Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former
newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a
syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s
until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban
markets in the United States.

Today, Jon is an advertising
executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com
has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington
insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use
both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on
his website.

Democrats,
who virtually controlled both the House and the Senate from 1933 to 1994
with only a couple of brief reprieves, saw nothing wrong with Franklin
D. Roosevelt's stacking the high court with the architects of the New
Deal to protect the shift from democracy to socialism in America.